Volvo V40 2016 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 2 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo V40 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo V40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 324 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1500 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Volvo V40 has 40 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 200 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |